Re: [Openvortex-dev] Re: Re: [ALSA - driver 0001138]: errors when installing au8820 modules

[Raymond]

Is there any way to remove this warning for the change from "0x%08lx" to
"0x%08x" in 32-bits compiler ?

 warning: unsigned int format, long unsigned int arg (arg 2)

There is no warning before this change.


alsa-kernel/pci/au88x0/au88x0_core.c

@@ -1054,7 +1054,7 @@
                hwwrite(vortex->mmio, addr, FIFO_U0);
                if (hwread(vortex->mmio, addr) != FIFO_U0)
                        printk(KERN_ERR
-                              "bad wt fifo reset (0x%08lx, 0x%08x)!\n",
+                              "bad wt fifo reset (0x%08x, 0x%08x)!\n",
                               addr, hwread(vortex->mmio, addr));
                vortex_fifo_clearwtdata(vortex, x, FIFO_SIZE);
                addr -= 4;


> Well, I've not stated the problem clearly enough.
> Once set, volume stays as it should. The problem is that
> PCM volume is:
> 1% - at lowest audible level
> 25% - at about 50% audible level
> 49% - at about max audible level
> 51% - at lowest audible level
> 75% - at about 50% audible level
> 99% - at about max audible level
> - that is what I described as low-high-low-high.
> On the other hand, Master volume behaves as expected.


What is the value of comment.range of 'PCM Playback Volume' in
/etc/asound.state for your STAC9704 (au8820) ?


According to 9704SPEC.pdf, it should be '0-31' ( 5 bits ) for STAC9704 
PCM Out volume.

or check the values *low_max and *high_max return by 
check_volume_resolution()

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/alsa/alsa-kernel/pci/ac97/ac97_codec.c?r1=1.163&r2=1.164


Igor Kovalenko wrote:
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > At Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:16:02 +0200,
> > Alien wrote:
> >
> >
> > > [1  <text/plain; iso-8859-1 (quoted-printable)>]
> > > Op dinsdag 7 juni 2005 17:05, schreef Raymond:
> > >
> > >
> > > > The patch (diff11.diff) cause segmenation fault on my 32bit machine
> > > > during /etc/init.d/alsasound start
> > > >
> > > > http://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/?func=detailitem&item_id=3948
> > > >
> > > > Do anyone know why readl() and writel() behave different in i386
> > > > (32bits) and AMD64 (64bits) ?
> > > >
> > > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=10773530
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #ifndef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > >
> > > > #define        hwread(x,y) readl((x)+((y)>>2))
> > > > #define        hwwrite(x,y,z) writel((z),(x)+((y)>>2))
> > > >
> > > > #else
> > > >
> > > > #define        hwread(x,y) readl((x)+(y))
> > > > #define        hwwrite(x,y,z) writel((z),(x)+(y))
> > > >
> > > > #endif
> > >
> > > that doesn't look good, unless the mmio is void* in 32bit and unsigned long* 
> > > in x86_64...
> > >
> > > 'unsigned long* mmio' should be preferred and together with '#define        
> > > hwread(x,y) readl((x)+(y))' , this works for both platforms
> >
> >
> > I guess using "unsigned long" for both architectures is broken, too.
> > Should be "u32" to be arch-independent.
>
>
> I strongly believe readl() and writel() on x86_64 does 32 bit reads/writes.
> (checked linux-2.6.12-rc5). Therefore reads/writes are of correct size with
> that patch - should be something different.